Read the full articleQuote:
The photographer who runs Asian Diva Girls called this post from Eden Alexander to my attention. I'm a little bit familiar with Eden Alexander's work with
Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
The photographer who runs Asian Diva Girls called this post from Eden Alexander to my attention. I'm a little bit familiar with Eden Alexander's work with
Good question. What's the standard on conditional consent for sex? If you lie about, say, having recently been tested for STDs or being on the pill to get someone to agree to have sex with you, does that retroactively make it **** when it turns out to have been false? Whatever you settled on there would apply to this.
Also, you'd have to be pretty lame for providing drugs alone to not be enough to get you all the rough sex you have energy for. Maybe he got off on taking people out of their comfort zones?
Anyone who uses manipulation to get sex is a predator. Period. I cannot stomach anyone who takes advantage of someone to get laid. I don't even go to strip clubs. I went once in my youth and felt like a total loser handing a lady money to dance for me. If I cannot get a girls attention and/or affection with my winning personality and Coors light baby bump then that night shall be a night of masturbation.
Nothing else really matters except that he's writing bad checks. I'm sure lots of strange things go on in that industry, however there should be a definte code of conduct when it comes to paying..... out of respect for that strangeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
I kind of feel like, if someone doesn't disclose that she is not really on the pill or that he actually has active herpes or whatever, that makes that person an enormous jerk. In the first case, there are issues of child support obligation and in the second of medical care and discomfort etc. But it still doesn't seem like **** to me. Awful, yes, but I think a different kind of awful.
I think you are dead-on right that this creep's thing was taking people out of their comfort zones and I'd venture to say that taking a pornstar out of her comfort zone generally means being kinda awful. At least, to my eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
I feel like it is generally appropriate to pay someone, if the media being created is producing more financial benefit for one party or the other. If the model or performer is making more on the deal, it is fair to pay the photographer/director, and, if the photographer or director is making more, then it is fair to pay the model/performer.
If I'm honest, I feel is is ALWAYS wrong to pay someone to do something they deeply do not want to do. I don't mean it is wrong to pay someone to show up on time or help someone annoying, but I just think it is wrong to pay someone to do something which violates their convictions. Like I think it is fine to pay a soldier to kill, unless he or she has a strongly held belief that doing so is wrong, which is only overridden by a need for dough.
well, I can understand people violating thier convictions at the point of a gun, but doing it for a few bucks just says that thier convictions aren't that strong.
I think it's totally reasonable for you to decide what you are and are not comfortable with, for personal entertainment or otherwise. My view is that dancers are performers and I appreciate their skills. I don't feel like they are doing me a favor and I don't feel like they have to be there doing the job if they don't want to. It's not a personal interaction to me, so it has nothing to do with attention and/or affection. I'd pay someone to breath fire for me, but that doesn't mean I expect them to love me or come home with me. I think it's reasonable to pay someone to mow the lawn when it's a really hot day, even if I think that sounds like a kind of awful task I might not want to do. But I shouldn't project my values onto them. If they are cool with doing the job, who am I to project my values onto them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
I think the problem with this sort of thing is that some people will be swayed by overly large dollar amounts and those amounts are different for people in different situations. Kinda like, on the non-hideous end of the spectrum (if I can project my values for a sec), if someone is nice to a rude customer for six bucks an hour when they are 16, they might not be willing to put up with those things for that amount at a later date with more options.
Part of what made this Blaise guy so effective is that, contrary to popular belief, female talent almost never gets $1,000 to $2,000 for a scene. So he is starting with something the person is down for and stroking her ego by offering to pay her many times what she normally gets and then, after she is there and fairly committed, he adds reportedly unpleasant sex and nonpayment to the mix.
Well, thinking about it, after I typed all that, I kind of agree. I mean, there are things I strongly disagree with that I wouldn't do for $2,000. But I would do them for $100,000,000. I know the dollar amount sounds silly, but, believe me, $2,000 for that is almost as unlikely.
Only there are things I would not do, even for $100,000,000 so I guess it does depend on how deeply held the convictions are. I personally would never ever want to immortalize someone on camera doing something he or she did not actively want to do, but that is probably part of why I make artist $ and not porno $.
I'm no expert in this area, but a **** conviction would be improbable to impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
OEC
Can someone give legal consent if they have been given heroin?Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
That'd be their best case if they were trying for a **** conviction. In terms of meeting the burden of proof though? Ugh. Those are tough cases even when it is even more straightforward. They definitely are no longer of a mental capacity that would dictate consent. I don't know if that would stick or you'd be better off with more of a breach of contract, coercion type charge. We'd really have to see the case presented by the DA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
OEC
My intuition says much the same. Conditional consent to sex under conditions like that still says "I would have, if you paid me/didn't give me herpes/etc", and the unpleasant event will be the exception to that expectation, not an actual ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
There's a theoretical point where the levels of awfulness meet though, so long as there's no hard limit to the unpleasantness you can pay people to submit to if you offer enough money. 'Hard' is the difficult part here, since people as a rule are grossly irrational at quantifying value and manipulable by magnitudes by circumstance and presentation.
That's the problem with these laws. Dubious-to-absent mental capacity is where sex starts getting good.Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
Yeah, **** seems like a stretch in this case. Breech of contract? A civil suit?
It's a general principle of law that any consent obtained by fraud or coercion is null and void.
A civil suit sounds more likely. The burden of proof is lower. That is what kind of what jumped out at me. A criminal conviction may be a stretch here. We'd really have to see all the evidence laid out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Friendly
OEC